This is the GSA Way!

Introduction

Last week, some of you may have been aware that GreenSquareAccord, in response to the Housing Ombudsman upholding my complaint (and denying GreenSquareAccord’s request for it to be overthrown), took the step to involve their lawyers to exert pressure and intimidation against me.

While this may appear trivial at first glance, it's crucial not to underestimate the intentions and the potential threat that this action poses to anyone who dares to voice their concerns against their housing provider. It's not just a threat to those who seek to support fellow residents; it's a direct assault on the freedom of speech itself.

Despite GreenSquareAccord's latest corporate strategy, which pledges to prioritise customer satisfaction and engagement, promising to:

• Collaborate with customers to enhance service quality through modern platforms that cater to their needs.

• Foster a robust customer service culture within the organisation.

• Directly involve customers in driving improvements.

• Ensure services are of the highest quality and value by partnering with top-tier suppliers.

The reality is starkly different. If you dare to raise your voice, extend support to others, or even imply that this housing provider (under the stewardship of Ruth Cooke) is falling short in delivering the service residents pay for, and if you have the audacity to take a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman (and dare I say, have it upheld), their response is to brandish legal threats. This, my friends, is the GSA Way!

The Threat at Hand

On 11th August 2023, Trowers & Hamlins LLP, acting on behalf of GreenSquareAccord, reached out to me expressing their dissatisfaction with my online activities and interactions concerning GreenSquareAccord.

I will present both their letter and my response to offer a comprehensive perspective on the situation. Additionally, I'd like to explain my decision not to comply with the specific requests detailed in their communication. Let's break down their requests concisely:

Cessation of Specific Online Engagement

They propose the shutdown of the website www.greensquareaccordresidents.co.uk, the deactivation of the associated Twitter account (https://twitter.com/residents_gsa) and Facebook page (https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100073204705905), discontinuing the use of the email address contact@greensquareaccordresidents.co.uk, and refraining from any online presence that could be interpreted as linked to GreenSquareAccord.

One must question why any housing provider would attempt to curtail residents' outreach. If a resident is feeling weary, and increasingly frustrated due to being ignored, why would the senior leadership opt to close a channel that amplifies the voices of their residents? This approach contradicts the very notion advocated by GreenSquareAccord.

Feedback isn't always positive, but it's always pertinent. GreenSquareAccord must embrace this concept wholeheartedly if they genuinely aspire to become the customer-centric housing provider they proclaim to be.

Future Online Representation

Given my firm decision not to dismantle my website or deactivate my social media accounts, this point becomes moot. Furthermore, I maintain that my use of their logo falls under fair use, permitting the reproduction of copyrighted material for limited and "transformative" purposes, such as commentary, criticism, or parody of the copyrighted work. Such uses are exempt from requiring permission from the copyright owner.

Communication Management Plan (CMP)

GreenSquareAccord's outlined CMP demands I do not directly communicate with them or their staff through various channels. This includes in-person meetings, emails, calls, social media messages, and tagging on personal accounts. The plan also underscores the necessity of obtaining prior written consent before recording their staff and refraining from using hashtags that explicitly mention GreenSquareAccord personnel, contractors, or agents.

Although GreenSquareAccord might choose to ignore my emails, they cannot later deny knowledge of issues that have been raised. Numerous safety concerns, including unsafe lifts, damp and mould, and multiple fire and safety hazards impacting vulnerable residents, have been brought to light both directly and through my website.

No personal social media accounts are tagged unless they clearly affiliate themselves with GreenSquareAccord. If GreenSquareAccord are going to use an affiliated account to publish bold claims pertaining to their performance then I am going to highlight the other side (as a resident) of that story.

Remember the attempt by RBH CEO Gareth Swarbrick to distance himself from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak by claiming ignorance? In light of such events, I stand with Ruth Cooke, supporting her in understanding the issues, apprehensions, and safety matters affecting her residents. I am conviced that as a proactive CEO Ruth Cooke must be kept in the loop and able to respond accordingly.

Regarding the assertion that I left a video message for Julianne Britton, that's accurate. For the sake of transparency, I'm sharing the video publicly, since Julianne shared it with GreenSquareAccord, and subsequently, it was weaponised by GreenSquareAccord. I've made an edit only to redact my phone number from the video.

I will persist in my practice of providing GreenSquareAccord with posts for their review prior to publication via email. This approach not only adheres to ethical considerations, but it also presents an opportunity for GreenSquareAccord to contribute their perspective, should they choose to do so.

In my assessment, it is both just and equitable that individuals mentioned within a post possess the prerogative to offer their counterpoints.

This course of action aligns with the principles of transparency and fairness that are vital in fostering open dialogue and balanced representation. By extending the opportunity for GreenSquareAccord to respond, I uphold the values of informed discourse and impartiality, which are integral to constructive communication.

Additionally, this practice underscores a broader obligation of duty of care, particularly on the part of GreenSquareAccord, toward their team members. Facilitating an avenue for their voices to be heard not only serves the interests of fairness but also demonstrates a commitment to the emotional and professional well-being of their employees. This approach is consistent with principles of workplace well-being, fostering an environment where concerns can be addressed, misconceptions clarified, and perspectives shared.

In a legal context, this practice can be seen as a prudent step toward minimising potential misunderstandings and mitigating any harm that may arise from misrepresentations or incomplete information. Such proactive engagement can contribute to the prevention of legal disputes and demonstrates a genuine commitment to ethical conduct.

The Letters (theirs and mine)

Their letter can be found here.

And my response can be found here.

The Legal Threat

GreenSquareAccord's decision to pursue civil injunctions reveals a concerning approach to handling residents' concerns and feedback. These injunctions are essentially civil orders that can be sought in the county court for adults and the youth court for those under 18. The premise for obtaining such an injunction is if the court believes an individual has participated in or intends to engage in behaviour that can cause nuisance and annoyance.

While the intent might be to curb behaviours that genuinely disrupt the peace, the application of these injunctions in response to expressing dissent or raising valid issues can indeed seem trivial and disproportionate. By utilising such measures to address what is essentially the act of voicing concerns, GreenSquareAccord risks casting a shadow on the principles of openness, accountability, and the right to express oneself.

It's important to acknowledge that being a passionate advocate for change can sometimes be construed as "annoying." However, being outspoken should not overshadow the legitimacy of one's concerns. The line between being vocal and being right is distinct; being assertive doesn't negate the validity of the message.

In this context, it's worth remembering that progress and positive change often arise from voices that refuse to be silenced. Being labeled as "annoying" doesn't diminish the significance of the issues raised or the need for constructive dialogue. If anything, it underscores the urgency of creating spaces where diverse perspectives, even those deemed "annoying," can contribute to meaningful transformation.

Conclusion

The present situation highlights a critical juncture where the principles of open communication, feedback, and resident empowerment clash with the threat of legal action.  Remember I only set up the website and social media accounts after GreenSquareAccord refused to communicate with me.

GreenSquareAccord's professed commitment to putting customers first and fostering a strong customer service culture is commendable on paper, but it must be embodied in practice as well.

Feedback, both positive and critical, constitutes an essential mechanism for growth and improvement. Just as a plant requires sunlight and water to thrive, organisations like GreenSquareAccord should embrace feedback as the nourishment that propels them towards excellence. The power of feedback lies not merely in its positivity but in its ability to shed light on areas needing development, thus enhancing the quality of services provided to the residents.

The very notion of openness, transparency, and accountability, preached by GreenSquareAccord, demands that residents have the right to voice their concerns without fear of reprisal. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democratic society and a fundamental human right. When a housing provider responds to legitimate concerns with legal threats, it undermines the principles they profess to uphold.

Our right to express dissatisfaction, voice complaints, and unite as a community to hold our housing provider accountable should be inviolable. The attempt to suppress these rights through threats of legal action is not just an attack on individuals; it's an assault on the collective power of residents to shape their living conditions and ensure that their needs are met.

As residents, we must stand resolute against such attempts to stifle our voices. We must recognise the value of our feedback and the importance of fostering an environment where concerns are welcomed and addressed constructively. By refusing to be cowed by legal threats, we reclaim our right to freely express ourselves, contribute to positive change, and create a living environment that truly reflects our needs and aspirations.

In the spirit of unity, openness, and the genuine pursuit of better living conditions, we must ensure that the GSA Way becomes a beacon of responsiveness, accountability, and collaboration, rather than a symbol of intimidation.

Let us work together to foster a culture where feedback flows freely, improvements are embraced, and our collective voice is a force for positive transformation.